TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. (ii) That the above said addition has been confirmed ignoring the explanation and the evidence brought on record by the assessee. (3)(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the commission income having neither accrued nor arisen during the year there was no jurisdiction for the Assessing Officer to tax the same as income. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bighas of land respectively on behalf of M/s PACL India Ltd. vide different agreements dated 12.03.2006 and 27.10.2006. There was another agreement dated 14.03.2006 between assessee and Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar by which both had agreed to share the commission received from M/s PACL India Ltd. on 50-50% basis irrespective of the fact as to who procures the land. 4. During the year, the assessee received an amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- from Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar, which he did not offer for tax. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings on the basis of agreement between assessee and Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar made the addition of Rs,1,40,00,000/- as his part of share in the commission income. The Assessing Officer obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Rs.2,66,000/- and from sale of seasonal vegetables Rs.75,000/-. It was further submitted that agricultural income was earned out of crops grown on his land and on land taken on lease. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee on the basis that land of the assessee was situated in district Dehradun, whereas, receipts of agricultural produce were from district Haridwar and moreover assessee had not submitted any evidence of incurring agricultural expenses. The contention of assessee that he had entered into an agreement for sharing agricultural produce on 50% basis was also not accepted. The Assessing Officer had also deputed an ITI to make enquiries and report of ITI had mentioned that assessee owned 17 bighas of land and no ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that in earlier year an amount of Rs.62,50,000/- was paid by Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar to the assessee and the matter was sent back to Assessing Officer for readjudication. The relevant findings of Tribunal order are placed at paper book page 94 onwards, which are reproduced as under: "We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the land was procured by Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar as confirmed by the company on whose behalf land was purchased and Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar had also declared commission income to the tune of Rs.7,18,55,600/- in his return of income. We also find from the order of CIT (A) that assessee had made a complaint on 9.04.2009 to the joint Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is income, he should have considered 50% of total commission earned by Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar which was in crores. The Assessing Officer also did not confirm from the Income Tax records of Shri Rajender Singh Khetasar as to whether he had claimed expenditure which he had paid to the assessee as his alleged share of commission. Moreover Ld. CIT (A) has given directions to Assessing Officer regarding certain additions and has not directly adjudicated on them which is beyond his powers. 15. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that whole case should be relooked again by Assessing Officer and it is directed that Assessing Officer should make proper and detailed enquiries be....